Serenade for Strings

Hey Everyone,

I would like to introduce my Serenade for Strings. It's currently unfinished, lacking a 4th movement that I intend to add, but the first three can give a pretty good example of my composing skills. I'm really proud of this work...I think it's one of my best. I hope you think so too.

I began writing the piece out of the blue, inspired by the Tchaikovsky Serenade in C (as you can probably hear in the first movement), and it turned into much more than I expected. I envisioned a summer romance, a brief love affair symbolizing bliss. I felt that in each of the three movements. The scoring is as follows:

Violin 1

Violin 2

(Violin 3 - first movement)

Viola 1

Viola 2

Cello 1

Cello 2

Double Bass

I split up the viola and cello to get a deeper sound, which I think is lost when the they remain in unison.

NOTE - I know some of the notes are out of range for Double Bass - this was because I compose in "display in concert pitch" and when I made the scores, I didn't change the parts. whoops!

The links to the mp3/pdf files are as follows:

Movement I - Adagio and Allegro

PDF - String Serenade - MVT I.pdf - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage

Movment II - Romanze

PDF - String Serenade - MVT II.pdf - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage

Movement III - Danze

PDF - String Serenade - MVT III.pdf - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage

I hope you enjoy, and I appreciate any and all comments, both good and bad.

~Joe

Right, I've only listened to the first movement, but as a string player I can offer you the following points:

1. You specify the instrumentation above and in the score, but in fact all of the parts divide at some point. Why not simply write for six violins, four violas, four cellos and two basses? I know this will take up more room in the score, but will make it much easier to read, particularly at places like b.41-3 in the viola parts. It's quite awkward to see what's going on.

2. Most of your written key signatures are unnecessary, and will be confusing for players having to count new sharps and flats every few seconds. Much better to write them as accidentals in the parts, that way we only have to remember for a bar.

3. There are some passages in this, most frequently in the first violin and cello parts, which are really quite difficult, perhaps impossible at the speed prescribed. Bar 63 in an example - the first cello part is just about possible, but there's no way the violins will be leaping between the notes at that speed, even if they can find some way of crossing strings rather than having to shoot up and down the same one. In the cellos, don't expect bars 116-120 to sound very precise- or pretty. Same for various violins b. 176-8. That's a very difficult passage you've written, what with all the leaping about. Strings don't like wide leaps. Are you a pianist?

4. The lowest notes in the contrabass part of bar 67 are four notes lower than the normal compass of the instrument. If you want these, you'll have to specify a bass with an extension in the score - which most of them don't have.

5. In the cello parts; if you're writing notes significantly above middle C for any period of time, use the tenor or treble clefs. Much easier to read than counting ledger-lines. Same goes for using treble clef in the violas.

As a composer I can also add:

1. You seem to stay in a key for ages, and then - poof! -with the arrival of a new key signature we've modulated to another, which we stay in...for ages. It isn't as bad as repetitive I-V-I harmony all the time, but it doesn't create any tension, particularly at the start of the piece where the musical argument needs to be set out in this way. There's not a single accidental anywhere in the adagio, so, tonally, your piece hasn't gone anywhere in the first seven and a half pages. You then suddenly begin the allegro with an abrupt modulation to the dazzlingly remote key of Eb! We're expecting more exciting turns, but, no, sadly, it's another six pages in the same key. (The development is a little more interesting, though.)

2. Stylistically, the music was a little inconsistent - not enough to be confusing, but we I felt the music kept re-starting, disrupting the narrative and flow. Some of the chord progressions in the adagio didn't really work, and didn't seem to go anywhere in this section - related to the first point about keys.

3. The counterpoint from bar 88 was, however, quite well handled and made an effective texture. Unfortunately, the dramatic effect of the implied pedal point was spoilt somewhat by the lack of modulation generally. We were getting quite used to being in the same key for a period of time by this point.

4. Some of your writing is a little bit too dense. Whilst a rich chord or counterpoint can be a very effective texture, I worry that you sometimes neglect the contrasts available, and that in a real performance much of the detail would be lost through the sheer density of sound.

5. Returning to the opening section - there wasn't much melody, hence little to develop. Try incorporating some intervals or patterns which you can then use in different ways when you develop them. I don't mean you have to write a brilliant and memorable tune we'll be humming all the way home, but just some recognisable feature you can explore.

I hope you're not discouraged by these criticisms. There was also much to commend in your composition. You had a grasp of narrative in the music and avoided copying the style of other composers too much.

I'll listen and review the other movements later.

Biddy

First off welcome to the forum.

You have every right to feel proud about this piece. I only have the time to listen to the first movement, but there is a lot of nice stuff going on in it.

Siwi brings up some good points, but I am sure you are not finished with this anyway.

Keep at it.

Ron

Yes welcome to the forum. I found this to be another attractive piece with a lot of good ideas in it and some very rich string writing. Siwi has covered most of the technical stuff. The only thing I would add is that when you have written chords in the parts you should indicate whether you want chords played or the section to divide. Usually one is more appropriate than the other. You have used both in your score but don't give any indications.

I only looked at the first movement which like your viola sonata has some attractive tunes in them. I would say that structurally you have approached it in the same way which is to link several contrasting sections together rather than develop material from one section.

Welcome To YC, This Is A Very Good Piece, I've Listened To The First And Second Movement, And The Are Both Very Good, But You Need To Create More Tension, On The Second Movement I Love That Long Suspension It Was Awesome Lol, Keep Up The Good Work.

thanks everyone!

siwi - thank you for the information about the string parts and some of their difficulties...I'm a clarinetist, and don't have much experience with string instruments, other than what I have learned from reading and talking with friends. I disagree about the beginning though...I like the fact that it stays in one key. Like I said, I'm modeling the Tchaikovsky Serenade which, in the first movement, has a slower passage (though Tchaikovsky wrote it as a tribute to Mozart...so I guess I'm modeling Mozart? :P)

I agree, though, that it is dense. During my revision, I'm going to take all that you have commented on and take a very long, hard look at it. Thank you!

Roli - Thanks! I can't wait to hear your opinions about the other movements!

Ablyth - I will most certainly mark my divisi later on.....it's something I have a terrible habit of not doing! I am also going to work on developing one section instead of shifting existing sections around. I think I do develop the piece with the theme from the first section of movement I quite well towards the middle, but you're right - Where the second theme picks up, there isn't much that links it to what follows.

blm - Thanks for your comments!

I'd like to comment on the second movement a bit, if I may. To begin, let me say that I love it. There are times for me, though, where the piece feels as though it's plodding along, as in, certain sections that come back for really no reason at all other than to be heard again. "Hey, here I am! Remember me?" At some point, either by accident or by someone much wiser than I, you'll learn about Juxtaposition of Form, which is often mistaken for a reduction in form.

What I mean is this: You can have an "A" theme and a "B" theme and you can have them play one after the other until the end of time as long as you are developing the ideas. After your large climactic moment (which by the way was absolutely beautiful, hands down!), the piece sort of takes its time to recollect itself. This works IF you're going to do just that, collect the elements of the themes and piece them back together. You give me "A" and "B" again. I'm confused, because you just broke my heart and now you're acting like it never happened. See what I'm getting at? Anyone?

This takes an intuitive sense, most of the time, another composer's sense. It's very hard to pull away from the internal workings to see the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is more important than anything you'll do on the analytical side. Take a step back to look at it for yourself and see where you can shape the form of the work a little more. It's after the climax that you're having some problems with this, so take a look and develop around how YOU want the big picture to come across to the listener.

That's all. Great job!

-AntiA

hey AntiA, thanks for your comments!

I see what you're saying....the comments on all of my music thus far have been to develop, not repeat, which I'm starting to understand now, lol. I'll definitely take this into consideration when reworking it! Thanks!

Hi There,

Just new to the forum and started listening some stuff... Composition is really good m8, i like it very much! ;)

Greetz

Thanks Safares! Hopefully I will get around to editting it once I finish my violin concerto...